Where The Warmth Is

I got to thinking about the “hiatus” in warming in the 21st Century, and I realized that the CERES satellite dataset covers the period since the year 2000. So I’ve graphed up a few views of the temperature changes over the period of the CERES record, which at present is May 2000 to February 2017. No great insights, just a good overview and some interesting findings.

First, here are the raw CERES global average surface temperature data, the seasonal variations, and the anomaly that remains after removing the seasonal variations.

Figure 1. Seasonal decomposition of the CERES surface temperature data. Statistical results (bottom line) are adjusted for autocorrelation using the method of Koutsoyiannis.

So … what are we looking at? The top panel shows the raw data, the actual temperature variations. The middle panel shows the repeating seasonal variations. The bottom panel shows the “residual anomaly”, the variations that remain once we’ve removed the repeating seasonal component of the signal.

The bottom panel, the residual anomaly, is the panel of interest. You can see how little the temperature has varied over the seventeen years of record. The El Nino of 2016-2017 is quite visible … but other than that there isn’t much happening.

There is one thing that is interesting about the residual … other than warming as a result of the 2016-2017 El Nino, the temperature anomaly only varied by about ± 0.2°C. Among other places, I’ve discussed what I see as the reason for this amazing stability in a post called Emergent Climate Phenomena.

The next question of interest to me is, where is the temperature changing, and by how much? Here is a Pacific and an Atlantic centered view of the warming trends recorded by CERES, in degrees C per decade.

Figure 2. Temperature trends around the globe.

So … what is of note in these global maps? Well, both the poles are unusual. The area around Antarctica is cooling strongly, and the Arctic is warming. Presumably, this is why we’re getting less sea ice in the North and more sea ice in the South. It also affects the hemispheric averages, with the Northern Hemisphere warming and the Southern Hemisphere basically unchanging. Figure 3 shows the average decadal temperature trends by latitude band.

Figure 3. Average decadal temperature trends by latitude band.

As you can see, the only parts of the planet where the temperature is changing much are the Southern Ocean around Antarctica, and the area above the Arctic Circle.

Next, in Figure 2 you can see that the North Atlantic is generally cooling. On the other hand, the Pacific is mixed, with areas of slight cooling and other areas of slight warming. Go figure.

On land, northern Russia, parts of the Sahel, the Gobi, and western Australia are warming. On the other hand, the upper Amazon is cooling strongly. So it looks like some (but not all) deserts are warming, and some (but not all) tropical forests are cooling … why?

I haven’t a clue. In my opinion, the most important words that anyone studying the climate can learn to say are “I don’t know.”

At the end of the story, I’m left with my usual amazement at the stability of the system. Despite being controlled by things as evanescent as winds, waves, and clouds, the temperature anomaly doesn’t vary more than about two-tenths of a degree. Nor is this due to “thermal inertia” as many people claim. Look again at Figure 1—the temperature changes by four degrees C peak to peak in the course of a single year, and changes by a degree and a quarter C in a single month, but the anomaly barely budges. To me, this is clear evidence of strong thermoregulatory systems, but of course, YMMV …

Sunshine today after rain, the Pacific ocean glitters in the far distance, the earth abides …

Regards to all,

w.

PS—As always, my polite request is that you QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU ARE DISCUSSING, so we can all be clear about what you are referring to. Please be aware that while my request is polite, if you ignore the request I may say unflattering things about your ancestry, commenting habits, or cranial capacity … be warned.

DATA: For the temperature data I have used a straight Stefan-Boltzmann conversion of the CERES EBAF Edition 4.0 datafile showing upwelling longwave radiation. The dataset is available here. I have checked and compared this temperature dataset to a variety of other temperature datasets (HadCRUT4, Reynolds SST, HadISST, TAO buoy data) and found very little difference.

As far as I know, CERES does not measure surface temperature. Could be estimates from the MODIS imager that the CERES team passes through… but I wouldn’t trust MODIS infrared for surface temperature because it’s too prone to cloud contamination, and so they only have temperature info on clear days… an obvious source of bias.

Without checking the orbital details, I think both platforms probably have similar orbital inclination: near pole but not actually over the poles.
The reason that UAH and RSS don’t cover higher latitudes is because of gaps in the data. There is some data but are too many holes to get a representative coverage.
Coverage may come down to viewing angle.of the instruments used and the swath overlap on the ground.

Roy, you really should read to the end of the post before commenting …

Willis, something as fundamental as that should be in the article, probably near the top, not in a PS after the usual boilerplate “please quote me” spiel.

PS—As always, my polite request is that you

When I got that far, I said, yeah OK, the usual ( perfectly reasonable ) Willis closing paragraph and stopped reading because I’ve read it a hundred times. I did not expect crucial scientific information relating to the scientific content of the post at that stage. So I also missed the vital explanation of how you got temperature from CERES and was under the mistaken impression that was a data field provided by the CERES folks, not a home spun derivation. I will now delete the graph I just saved.
Please be clearer, preferably in the intro when doing that kind of thing.
Many thanks to Dr Spencer for drawing attention to that.

Roy, you really should read to the end of the post before commenting …

Willis, something as fundamental as that should be in the article, probably near the top, not in a PS after the usual boilerplate “please quote me” spiel.

PS—As always, my polite request is that you

When I got that far, I said, yeah OK, the usual ( perfectly reasonable ) Willis closing paragraph and stopped reading because I’ve read it a hundred times. I did not expect crucial scientific information relating to the scientific content of the post at that stage.

I see. I have put links to data and other information after my “polite request” in DOZENS AND DOZENS of my posts … and now when you are too lazy to read to the bottom of the thread it’s somehow my fault?
Look, no matter what I write there’s always some random anonymous internet popup to tell me I’m doing it wrong … and despite that I’m the most-read of all guest authors on WUWT. Go figure. Today you’re the random anonymous popup telling me I’m doing it wrong … color me unimpressed, you’re just another in a long line.
I have no plans to change how I post links to my data, Greg. I’ve always posted them at the very bottom, after my request. I’ve generally done that whenever I’ve had data and other links for some 600 posts now, and I will continue to do so despite the fact that for however long you’ve been reading my work you’ve been too self-absorbed to notice what’s going on. Consider yourself notified.
At a minimum, it’s a great way to find out who doesn’t read to the end because they are full of their own knowledge of what it’s going to look like … you and Dr. Roy win this round.
w.

AFAIK neither do any of the other temperature data sets. I think what Willis meant to show was that the temps represented in those data sets didn’t vary much from the CERES data, not that they were accurate measurements of temps.

Alexander, I do love your ad hominem argument … in any case, I’d forgotten to add my usual “Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach” at the top. I’ve added it now, so you and others of your ilk will (hopefully) be discouraged from adding any of your usual nonsense to the comment thread on one of my posts.
You are truly a piece of work …
w.

“The comment was about how dreadful your work is…”
Actually it merely implied you didn’t value his input – which could imply either you have a personal problem with Willis or you do not value his work.
I greatly enjoy his input – he is always taking viewpoints I find interesting – more than I can say about most “Attackers” who add nothing of value to the conversation. Take a moment to actually read the article and say something interesting next time. Plz.
Meanwhile…I find the heating of the northern pole to be very curious. I never put any trust into the “land temperature measurements” up there since they are so sparse, but the satellite record seems to be indicating something weird is going on. If this were due to the influence of either the sun or cosmic rays, wouldn’t both poles be affected? Makes me wonder if there isn’t an unnamed oscillation between the poles that we are just now noticing. How the heck would that work?

Sorry Willis, that is not an ad hominem. The comment was about how dreadful your work is, not whether or not you are a dreadful person.

Rob, he said that he skips my work without reading it, simply because it is mine. If he doesn’t read it, how on earth could he know that any given piece is “dreadful”?
When you attack a man without reading a word of what he’s written, that is an ad hominem attack. It can’t be an attack on the scientific ideas put forward in this piece. How could it be—HE DIDN’T READ IT.
And why on earth would you defend that? Lead, follow, or get out of the way …
w.

rob, i think you are a clown based on past comments. i will still read your future comments though, just in case you post something of interest. your comments also suggest you and alexander feht are the one and the same. i believe that break site rules.

Re comments by Alexander and Rob.
If you do not like the post, just move on to another. There are very few people who can produce the product that Willis does. It usually indicates you do not understand it.

Robert of Texas, one view of why the Arctic is warming is the positive phase of the AMO. Warmer water flowing into the Arctic through the N. Atlantic has melted more ice which in turn allows more heat to enter the atmosphere from the ocean.
Since the AMO has little influence in Antarctica you would not see the same effect. However, having more ice melting in the Arctic could very well speed up the Meridianal Overturning Current (global ocean current) which could lead to more upwelling of cold water around Antarctica.
This would cover two of areas of interest. Finally, increasing CO2 could actually be responsible for the warming of the desert areas and the cooling of the tropical rain-forests. This is an expected result of of Dr. William Gray’s alternate water vapor feedback hypothesis.

When you attack a man without reading a word of what he’s written, that is an ad hominem attack.

Willis, he was not “attacking a man” he was saying he did not wish to read your work. That is presumably based on past experience of reading your work, not a personal “attack”.
There are similarly several commenters here like HenryP that I don’t even bother reading any more because they are so irrelevant. It is perfectly valid to form an opinion about someone’s work based on their past work and use that as a filter.
I have a positive prejudice in your case because your posts are often interesting and ( usually ) clearly explain the origin and processing of the data.

AFAIK neither do any of the other temperature data sets. I think what Willis meant to show was that the temps represented in those data sets didn’t vary much from the CERES data, not that they were accurate measurements of temps.

There was a study done years ago that examined reading and comprehension levels of American citizens that suggested they read on a fifth grade level and comprehend on a third grade level. Perhaps that extends to a small minority of WUWT participants. In reading Willis’ posts over the years I have been enriched by his presentations, since as a chemical engineer, I’m not a member of this exclusive community. Since I suffer from Expressive Aphasia from three strokes(no sympathy please)–my affliction requires re-reads in order to process the information, and hopefully comprehend what is presented.
This chest puffing and ad hominem attack does not offer any value to what we are all hear for—mainly to offer theories and evidence to promote knowledge. Can we provide the respect to each other that the other side does not?

Back in the paleolithic days of blogging, there was a blogger who disemvowled obnoxious commenters. She had a script that would remove all of the vowels from their comments, rendering the comments unintelligible. Just saying.

I have a Greasemonkey script on my laptop that changes the text color of any poster I add to its blacklist to Red. That way I can still read them if I want to, but I’ll know ahead that it probably won’t be worth my time.
Of course, I then read most WUWT articles on my phone.
>¿<

Anthony, that is exactly what I was thinking by the time I got to the 5th ad hom by Bradley. I started skipping because of my experience with his earlier junk comments.
Fortunately each comment has a bolded “Rob Bradley” at the top left informing me that it is time to flick the wheel (I have one of those mice with a no-click centre wheel – makes for faster fly-bys). It is the ultimate in efficient no-click browsing.
Willis: Thanks for the charts. I want to cite them in Atlanta in August. At best, CO2 might promote some regional warming, but it is certainly not global. It can be argued that is it sub-regional at best. It is also sub-annual because it is only in winter that one can trace some upward evidence.
Catastrophic anthropogenic sub-regional polar warming in winter? CASRPWIW? Not enough there to frighten the kittens.

What’s worse, Rob Bradley, is that you’re wasting everybody’s time. On and on and on it goes.
And you complain that Willis’ prose isn’t worth anybody’s time??
How can I print “CATASTROPHIC HYPOCRISY” in letters 10 feet high?

Mr. Watts, my name always appears above my comments, and anybody who doesn’t like them, can skip them. We are talking about articles, not comments here. I don’t want even to look inside any articles posted by Willis, and I sincerely hope that he would never forget to put his name on the home page again. Willis knows very well, what he is guilty of, and I will never forget it.

I agree with Alexander that a guest post should be clearly labelled. That omission has been promptly correct and hopefully more attention will be paid to this.
I don’t know what he thinks W. is “guilty” of and don’t really give a damn. But thanks for flagging the omission.

Jeeze, Rob…. The message went over your head by 10 feet, didn’t it?
Your stupidity… it burns.
But you’re not alone–you’re in good company with Mr. Feht.
(BTW, I can easily print 10-ft high letters on a Calcomp drum plotter, which has been available since the 80’s, and link them together in one big sign, proving you’re as ignorant as you are stupid.)
Again, you’re just wasting everybody’s time.

Reminds me of a fake test given to first year plumbing apprentices, the header stated read all questions before starting test ! Last line on the second page said ” to complete test only answer question 1 on page 1 ” , only one apprentice passed the test .
And the purpose of the test was just a lesson in reading paperwork from start to finish .

What’s hilarious is that the Warmunists have now changed their tune to “we should be cooling now”, implying that cooling would be good, but also deftly moving the goal posts in one fell swoop. Impressive.

“On land, northern Russia, parts of the Sahel, the Gobi, and western Australia are warming. On the other hand, the upper Amazon is cooling strongly. So it looks like some (but not all) deserts are warming, and some (but not all) tropical forests are cooling … why?”
Cloud cover springs to mind?

B.j., I agree that it has to somewhat to do with clouds. Dr. William Gray believed that adding more CO2 will lead to higher evaporation (caused by increased downwelling IR) which will work as a negative feedback. This would occur over rain-forests but not over deserts. Hence, the deserts would warm while the rain-forests could very well cool due to a strong negative feedback (clouds and reduced high altitude water vapor).

And as Dr Spencer pointed out the way W. has derived the “temperature” data probably is being biased by cloud cover problems with the coverage in CERES data. This is not CERES temperature data produced and endorsed by those running the project, it is Willis’ homespun, non PR “temperature” data.
If CERES allowed a reliable temperature field to be calculated I would expect the CERES guys to be marketing it.

And as Dr Spencer pointed out the way W. has derived the “temperature” data probably is being biased by cloud cover problems with the coverage in CERES data.

As I mentioned in the part that some charming folks didn’t read and now want to complain about, I’ve compared the conversion of the upwelling surface longwave data into temperature using the S-B equation to a variety of datasets. There is very little difference with any of them, and what difference there is, it is generally near the poles where all the temperature datasets have very little actual data.

This is not CERES temperature data produced and endorsed by those running the project, it is Willis’ homespun, non PR “temperature” data.

The answer is provided within a 10,000 year context in paper Holocene
part 8, AD 1600 to AD 2050, athttp://www.knowledgeminer.eu/climate-papers.html.
This study starts with paper part 1, at 8,500 BC.
Willis, let Anthony publish it, run it through your computer analysis.
The given figures are correctly calculated, feed them into your system,
and a wonderful job is awaiting you to shred a paper series into pieces –
let Anthony give you the possibility to show that the “Californian tiger”
has strong teeth to bite…. Cheers from the author, JS.

J., my rule of thumb is that if you have to look back a thousand years to find support for your theory you might need a new theory … hang on, I’ll take a look at it.
…
…
OK, I read the abstract, viz:

This 1,100 year time span, 550-1650 AD, consists of four distinct climate pattern periods. Each period shows the prevalence of only one of five existing cosmic climate driving mechanisms. The first distinct period is 550-1050 AD, consisting of a large double spike cosmic meteor impact pattern. The background is that each meteor impact of size leaves this particular pattern imprint within the entire GISP2 time series. The double spike consists of one cold spike at first, to 744 AD, also termed Late Antique Little Ice Age (LALIA), then followed by the second half of this pattern, the warm spike, to 985 AD, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP).
This pattern ends after 500 years in 1050 AD. Thereafter, the second pattern sets in: Two clean 62 year Solar Inertial Movement (SIM) patterns in a row; the pattern is generally known by its effect on ocean heating and cooling, as AMO and PDO cycles. Two distinct warm SIM cycle peaks appear in GISP2. The robustness of the 62 year cycle length can be verified by backtracking this exact cycle length over multi-millennia, over more than 100 cycles in line, in the Holocene.
The third pattern period starts in 1178 AD, and is caused by a strong cosmic lunar meteor impact. At this date, this impact displaced the Earth-Moon Barycenter (EMB), which then spirals back in 4 complete loops onto its regular EMB flight path around the Sun, for the following 400 years. This steady continuous closing in by four spiral loops onto the normal EMB orbital flight path around the Sun is clearly visible in the GISP2 data between 1207 AD and 1590 AD.
The fourth pattern period is the EOO (Earth Orbit Oscillation) with its low temperature trough, 1590-1640 AD, which marks the very bottom of the Little Ice Age (LIA), with a minimum trough temperature of -32.08°C on the GISP2 borehole temperature scale. This minimum trough marks the end of the 29th half-wave Earth Orbital Oscillation (EOO) period, 432 years in length. Those orbital oscillations are growing cycles; they commenced in 8108 BC, with an initial half-wave length of 238 years, growing in succession by 6.93 years per half-wave. Out of the EOO-LIA minimum temperature trough, temperatures are bound to rise for 439 years, to the top of the 30th half-wave, which is the next high temperature peak, in 2049 AD.

Dear heavens, you are giving an impossibly high bar to the term “special pleading”. As soon as your first theory no longer works, you bring in the second one … and when that one can no longer explain the same data, a third one is invented … then a fourth one to cover the fact that your third one can’t explain the data either.
I’ve NEVER seen special pleading like that, it is truly special … I did like the idea of a “cosmic lunar meteor impact”, however, and “Solar Inertial Movement” does indeed sound very sciency.
Pass.
w.

“The third pattern period starts in 1178 AD, and is caused by a strong cosmic lunar meteor impact. At this date, this impact displaced the Earth-Moon Barycenter (EMB), which then spirals back in 4 complete loops onto its regular EMB flight path around the Sun”

Many claims, no proofs.
““caused by a strong cosmic lunar meteor impact”
Exactly how is this impact, to the moon, determined and proven?
““this impact displaced the Earth-Moon Barycenter (EMB)”
Exactly how is this claim and effect determined?
““which then spirals back in 4 complete loops onto its regular EMB flight path around the Sun”
Just how does that mechanism work? For every action there is inaction? That four loops bit of description smacks of a model. not empirical evidence.
Before that odd Earth-Moon-Sun physics, I have no clue exactly what you are describing:
• A) Are you describing the Earth-Moon orbit around the sun, as the sun orbits within the Milky Way Galaxy?
• B) Or are you only referring to Earth’s orbit, around the sun as it orbits the Milky Way Galaxy?
• C) Or are you referring to Earth’s moon orbit path around Earth, around the sun as the sun orbits within the Milky Way Galaxy.
All of which fail to explain why Earth’s moon meteor impacts and orbit has any impact to Earth temperatures?

I’d love to know the mechanism by which a barycenter can be displaced.
The only way’s I can think of would be for either the orbit of the moon to be substantially changed or for the mass of either the earth or the moon to be changed substantially.
In neither case would the barycenter spiral back to what it used to be.
Ever.

Not commenting on the merits or lack thereof of J.’s hypotheses, but 1000 years is not a long time in climate studies. The longer the period of observation, the better. A millennium is shorter than many climatic cycles.
The peak of the Medieval Warm Period, of which CACA advocates wanted so much to get rid, was about 1000 years ago.

Willis, this is not paper part 8…. The paper part 8 concerns 1600 AD to 2050 AD.
You are in a different paper… Why dont you see in THE FIRST SENTENCE this
paper you quoted goes from 550 AD to 1650 AD? Is this so difficult to see?
Where did you leave your specs?
[Please] read the correct paper…. and your comment is mysterious as well….
something about the first, the second and the third theory and the [fourth] to
cover facts? The mistake is yours.- Willis…regards….J.

Willis, this is not paper part 8…. The paper part 8 concerns 1600 AD to 2050 AD.
You are in a different paper… Why dont you see in THE FIRST SENTENCE this
paper you quoted goes from 550 AD to 1650 AD? Is this so difficult to see?
Where did you leave your specs?
Plase read the correct paper…. and your comment is mysterious as well….
something about the first, the second and the third theory and the forth to
cover facts? The mistake is yours.- Willis…regards….J.

Thanks, welt, my bad. I looked at your paper Part 7. Part 8 is no better. All of my previous objections still apply. It is still just multi-parameter curve fitting. You should read my new post, How Not To Model The Historical Temperature. In it I say:

Here’s the bar that you need to clear:
“One way, and this is the way I prefer, is to have a clear physical picture of the process that you are calculating. The other way is to have a precise and self-consistent mathematical formalism. You have neither.”
So … if you look at your model and indeed “You have neither”, please be as honest as Freeman Dyson and don’t bother …

It looks like using a bunch of sin waves to match a curve… I don’t understand how that explains the climate changes, but instead seems to just model them.
You prediction is that it should continue to warm, or at least not to cool until 2049 (+/- some error margin?). The problem with these kind of predictions is that I will be dead before I know the answer… 🙁 Its easy to make claims that are far into the future – no one will remember if you are wrong – this is a common tactic used by the AGW crowd (or whatever they call their religion these days). To have any immediate value you need to make some predictions that can be measured in a few years (10 or less would be nice).
I have been following some people’s prediction that due to the solar activity, we will be entering a period of cooling somewhere in the early 2020’s. If it does show any degree of cooling for several years, this would be proof that your hypothesis failed?

That’s why we invented statistics, to answer that question. The answer is yes, series of that length can be statistically significant. For example, the CERES global temperature trend over that period is not statistically significant … but the CErES Arctic temperature trend of the same length is statistically significant.
Best regards,
w.

Willis, plz explain for mere mortals like myself… LOL Why is the CERES data data statistically significant for one and not the other? You say these things which are opportunities for me to learn, and then just leave me hanging! 🙂

Willis, plz explain for mere mortals like myself… LOL Why is the CERES data data statistically significant for one and not the other? You say these things which are opportunities for me to learn, and then just leave me hanging! 🙂

Good question. Given a dataset, suppose there is no trend. Obviously there’s no statistically significant trend.
Next, suppose there is a slight trend. Depending on how long the dataset is, that might or might not be statistically significant. If there are only say ten observations, we could be looking at just some small short-term random fluctuation.
But if the dataset has a thousand monthly observations covering ninety years and it shows the same trend as the short dataset, it may well be statistically significant.
Think of it as dice. If you throw one die say six times, and you only get one “6”, is that unusual? Is it significant? Heck no, we’d expect to get one six in six throws.
Now suppose you throw the die fifty times and you only get one “6” … you’re gonna say “These dice are weighted! This is a significant result!”
So the answer basically is, significance depends on the size of the trend and the length of the dataset. (The other factor is the “Hurst Exponent” of the dataset, but that’s getting down into the weeds.)
w.

So the answer basically is, significance depends on the size of the trend and the length of the dataset. (The other factor is the “Hurst Exponent” of the dataset, but that’s getting down into the weeds

It’s not just the Hurst exponent, it’s whether there are also external factors driving a system that have periods longer than the window of the data you are looking at (well, really longer than the window divided by a factor of 2-5 depending).
For example we have about two datapoints for the 60-70 year PDO/AMO cycles (140 years of temperature and other PDO related data). We don’t know much that’s statistically significant given a sample size of 2. We just know they seem to exist.
That’s why I dislike trendlines on time series data. There’s a huge assumption about oscillations whose periods are longer than that of the dataset. Those oscillations that are long look like trends… but they are not.
And from a scientific philosophy standpoint, you have to prove they are NOT there, not the reverse. (aka the null hypothesis). Very difficult to do, we only have very poor proxies (which have hints of long periods…)
Which means getting back to one of your favorite and my favorite quotes: “I don’t know” applies to trendlines in time-series data.
Peter

O ye of little patience and too much science!
All will be revealed in full technicolor next year, as you’d know had you taken the time to read The Future History of The Climate Debate:2019
Trenberth Travesty seen from space
The centrepiece of Nature’s April cover story is a stunning panorama of the Trenberth Travesty, stitched together from satellite imagery of the famous “missing” thermal energy.
“Using the hermeneutics of quantum gravity,” report the authors, “we are at last able to visualize this tricksy, mercurial zone of heat exchange whose 20,000-km front stretches from Cape Illusionment in autumn to The Isle of Mann in fall.”
The latest scientists believe the Travesty acts by thermal subterfuge to “launder” Kelvins from the atmosphere all the way down to the bathyclimatic ecosystem of the ocean floor, converting them to Hiroshimas en route.

Chimp,
I’m a science communicator, so, much like the authors of the Future History of the Climate Debate, I am far too busy to hand-hold everybody who doesn’t understand things.
Do your own homework: convert Kelvins to Nagasakis at room temperature and 1 atm using Clausius-Capeyron, then Steffen-Boltzmann / Navier-Nick Stokes should get you the rest of the way from mNgs to microTrvs via deciHss.
It should take you all of 2 minutes, assuming you’ve put in the several years of college-level reading required to opine competently in a forum like this, where real scientists occasionally stoop to lurk.
You have, haven’t you?

Chimp,
if I explained it to you I’d have to explain it to everybody. And that, of course, is precisely what denihilists want: to bog real scientists down in the futile attempt to teach elephants to dance instead of spending time in the lab, advancing our fundamental understanding of the big settled questions.

Chimp, don’t hold your breath, he’ll always obfuscate, so no wonder Mary is a bit confused.
He never quotes the lapse rate in degrees Fahrenheit per fkn furlong like normal scientists do.
Not that it matters any more though because we’ve been educated recently by Navier-NStokes about CO2 not having any effect where the CO2 actually is, so fk the lapse rate.
Climate communicate that Keyes

Missing hot spots? oh dear.
Had you taken the time to sit some basic Theology or Divinity 101, as all serious climate communicators from President Gore to Reichsführer Dr Cook have done, you’d understand the cliché that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Why has northern Russia warmed in recent years.?
The sharp decline in spring snow extent is likely to have had a large part to play in that.
As land surface free of snow cover warms up itself and the air lot quicker then snowfields with the coming of spring.

Yes l agree its a positive feedback.
l just don’t agree with the warmists claim that its been due to CO2 levels. Far more likely its been due to changes in wind patterns. With increases in warmer southern winds and a decrease of Polar air flowing over the area.

That chart is for February snow cover not for the spring.
lf you check the Rutgers spring snow cover chart for Eurasia. You will see there has been a sharp decline in spring snow cover over the last 50 years.

Why has northern Russia warmed in recent years.?
The sharp decline in spring snow extent is likely to have had a large part to play in that.
As land surface free of snow cover warms up itself and the air lot quicker then snowfields with the coming of spring.

taxed, I just looked at the Rutgers Snow Area database, and I can find no “sharp decline in spring snow extent”.
To confirm, I looked at the surface albedo in northern Russia. It averages 36%, and while this has declined slightly over the 17 years, the decline is only 1% per decade …
So while the change in surface albedo may have played a small part in the warmth, it seems unlikely to be a major factor.
Finally … why is northern Russia warming and not northern Canada?
Best regards,
w.

Willis
lf you look at the Rutgers Spring Eurasian snow extent chart, you will see there has been a decline in the snow extent over the last 50 years.
Why is northern Russia warming and not northern Canada?
Well there has been warming in northern Canada, its just not as much as in northern Russia.
Again the spring snow extent has a likely answer. Because if you look at the Rutgers N America spring snow extent. You can see the decline in spring snow extent in N America has been less then in Eurasian over the last 50 years.
So less of a decline in spring snow cover in N America means less of a positive feedback for that area as well.

Willis
lf you look at the Rutgers Spring Eurasian snow extent chart, you will see there has been a decline in the snow extent over the last 50 years.

True. However, my data above starts in the year 2000 … and the Rutgers spring Eurasian data (March-April-May) shows a slight but not statistically significant INCREASE in snow area during that period.
This agrees with the data from KNMI, as well as the CERES albedo data.
So I’m sorry, but your claim doesn’t hold up.
w.

Willis
l still believe that spring snow extent is more of a factor then its been given credit for.
Took a look at the data on Rutgers and its noticeable that the biggest declines in the snow extent since 2000 have been in late spring/early summer. Just when it matters the most. lts also interesting how the spring of 2017 bucked that trend and its looking like this spring may also do the same. So l will be looking to see the changes if any it brings to temps in northern Russia.

Hi Willis,
When do you expect your thermoregulatory system to start working? The top figure gives a temperature increase of 0.1 degrees per decade. Which given a few years will exceed your stated limits of +/- 0.2 degrees? Or is your claim that over any 20 year period the temperature will remain within a 0.2 degree limit
– a position completely consistent with global warming allowing you be right while raising CO2 levels continue to cause the temperature to increase.
Do you want to claim that over a 40 year period the trend will be zero? Or is there a measureable trend over a 40 year period?

Since Earth has probably warmed only about 0.5 degree C since the end of the LIA (rather than the cooked book figure of 0.8 degree often cited), the trend for that period is around 0.03 degree per decade.
As with all previous warm intervals during the Holocene, the Modern Warm Period has contained cooling cycles as well as warming. Each lasts about 30 years. The warming from c. 1977, when the PDO flipped, until the past decade has been no different from prior instances, the early 20th century and mid-19th century warmings, separated by cooling cycles. The world is already cooling again, although the El Niño of 2016 obscured its effect.
Arctic sea ice, for instance, has been growing since 2012. When the AMO enters its cool phase in a few years, the effect should become more pronounced.

Hi Chimp,
The world has warmed significantly more than 0.5 degrees since the little ice age (although I have no idea
when you think it ended). And I would like to see your evidence that the world is cooling. Willis analysis above suggests that it is currently warming at 0.1 degree per decade since 2000.

“Germonio March 24, 2018 at 2:45 pm
Hi Chimp,
The world has warmed significantly more than 0.5 degrees since the little ice age (although I have no idea
when you think it ended). And I would like to see your evidence that the world is cooling. Willis analysis above suggests that it is currently warming at 0.1 degree per decade since 2000”

Warming periods in the 1880s, 1930s-1950, and 1990s-2017 that are interspersed with cooling periods.
Your claim for greater warmth is evanescent.
Willis has demonstrated CERES data for the period from 2000-2017, which everyone basically agrees was a warming period.
Trillions spent and CO₂ effect is still unproven.
Willis’s Earth Temperature control processes are ever active.
Willis has published several times here explaining Earth’s temperature control method explicitly.
Even you are capable of searching for and reading those articles.

Germonio,
No, it hasn’t. In 1995, even alarmists agreed on 0.5 degree C. Since there has been essentially no warming since then, and that figure was probably high, the real number is around that level.
The traditional end of the LIA is given as 1850, but dates before and after that year have been suggested for the first warming cycle of the Modern WP. Earth cooled dramatically from the 1940s to late ’70s, as it also did in the decades before WWI.

ATheoK:
As nearly as I can reconstruct them from spotty raw data, here is my take on the alternating warm and cool cycles of the secular Modern Warming interval:
W: 1857-87
C: 1888-1917
W: 1918-44
C: 1945-76
W: 1977-2006
C: 2007-
The early 20th century warming was probably hotter than the late 20th to early 21st century interval. So far the Modern Warming has been cooler than the Medieval, which was cooler than the Roman, which was cooler than the Minoan, which was probably cooler than Holocene Climatic Optimum peak warmth.
Previous secular warm and cool periods of the Holocene and prior interglacials show similar countertrend cycles.

Hi Willis,
When do you expect your thermoregulatory system to start working? The top figure gives a temperature increase of 0.1 degrees per decade …

Germonio, do your homework. I’ve written about this very question over and over. You could start with my very first post on the subject of thermoregulation, it’s here …
Heck, I’ve got a whole post entitled “Slow Drift in Thermoregulated Emergent Systems“, but noooo, it’s obviously beneath you to do some research before uncapping your electronic pen and babbling inanities.
w.

Willis,
It is the slow drifts that make your hypothesis almost completely unfalsifiable and so non-scientific. Your claim seems to be that there is thermoregulation except for when there isn’t (i.e. the slow drifts) and for unknown reasons. How does one prove that such an assertion is wrong? Over the last twenty years the CERES data present above suggest the temperature is rising at a rate of 0.1 degree per decade. Is that a slow drift? Or a rapid one on a geological timescale?

Germinio March 24, 2018 at 4:24 pm
“Over the last twenty years the CERES data present above suggest the temperature is rising at a rate of 0.1 degree per decade. Is that a slow drift? Or a rapid one on a geological timescale?”
The most common example of a governed system in our lives is the “cruise control” on your car. Does it hold your speed perfectly steady? Of course not. I set it for 60 mph, and as I drive around it varies up or down by around 3 MPH.
Does this ± 5% drift in speed prove that there is no cruise control?
Don’t be daft …
Now, consider that over the 20th century the temperature varied by about ± 0.3°C. This is a temperature variation of about one-tenth of 1% (0.1%) … and you point at that to show that there is no temperature regulation?
Really?
All that proves is that you know very little about heat engines with governors …
w.

Willis,
if a car continued to increase its speed by 1% per kilometre while on cruise control at which point would you say that they cruise control was not working? The same with a “slow drift” idea at which point does the slow drift mean that the supposed thermoregulation is not working?
Nobody disputes the existence of positive and negative feedbacks in the climate system. The question is whether there are sufficient negative feedbacks to overcome the positive effects of increasing CO2. I would dispute that your thermoregulation effect is strong enough to counteract the effects of changing CO2 levels. Suppose for a moment that all CO2 and other non-condensing greenhouse gases disappeared from the atmosphere overnight. What would be the effect on the temperature? The standard greenhouse gas theory would predict that in a few weeks all of the
water vapour in the atmosphere would condense out and the earth would freeze. Would your
thermoregulation effects be strong enough to prevent that?

Geminio,
The GHE of CO2 is practically played out after the first 200 ppm. The effect is logarithmic, so adding more is, as Lindzen says, like putting another coat of white paint on an already white wall.
The net feedback effects are liable to be negative on a homeostatic, water world. Hence ECS is likely to be less than 1.2 degrees C per doubling. But even if slightly positive, net net, ECS would come in between 1.2 and 2.0 degrees C, probably around 1.6.
So, no worries. It’s all good.

Chimp,
about all that talk about CO2 saturation above 200ppm: what I have learned, is that CO2 is transfrering heat energay to other molcules by contact. From that special moment one CO2 is able to receiv new energy.
I tried hard to find any thing about the CO2 saturation, but in vain.

Meister,
I didn’t say that there was “saturation” above 200 ppm, but that most of the GHE of CO2 has already been effected at that level, due to the logarithmic nature of the GHE. The molecules continue working, but with diminishing returns.

Nick, as always trying to disprove things nobody said.
By the definition of a logarithmic curve, the difference between two points on the curve will never, ever, be nothing.
However at some point the difference between two points and nothing will be close enough that the difference no longer matters.

The most common example of a governed system in our lives is the “cruise control” on your car. Does it hold your speed perfectly steady? Of course not. I set it for 60 mph, and as I drive around it varies up or down by around 3 MPH.

Seriously Willis, get a better car. Using a satnav GPS s speedo my cruise control never even registers a one mph difference.

Nick Stokes March 24, 2018 at 5:48 pm
I didn’t say it was nothing. Just practically nothing, ie not significant.
The doubling from 200 to 400 ppm would produce warming of 1.2 degrees C without feedbacks. Negligible but wholly beneficial.

Germinio states: “Over the last twenty years the CERES data present above suggest the temperature is rising at a rate of 0.1 degree per decade.”
The period starts with a La Nina and ends with El Nino. That is the reason for your trend. Using the complete data set without understanding what is represented can lead to incorrect conclusions.

Robertvd, March 24, 2018 at 3:03 pm
“Why has northern Russia warmed in recent years.?
Because more people live there now than ever before. Bigger cities warming the rivers they live next to kept free from ice as long as possible like the sea routes with huge icebreakers to connect those cities”.
Actually no! More people do not live in Russia than before. I don’t generally trust Wiki but it will suffice in this case.
“Low birth rates and abnormally high death rates caused Russia’s population to decline at a 0.5% annual rate, or about 750,000 to 800,000 people per year from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s. The UN warned in 2005 that Russia’s then population of about 143 million could fall by a third by 2050, if trends did not improve”.
Demographics of Russia – Wikipedia

“On land, northern Russia, parts of the Sahel, the Gobi, and western Australia are warming. On the other hand, the upper Amazon is cooling strongly.”
I have a gadget here which will show trends in surface measurement (either unadjusted or homogenised).It shows various time periods; the nearest to this is 1997-2016. It shows measurement points and the triangular mesh used to interpolate. The original gadget is a trackball like Google Earth. Here is a snapshot of unadjusted data showing N Atlantic, poles, Sahara etchttps://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/2018/03/lacis2.png
The N Atlantic cooling does show out. The Sahara warmed, but is part of a band of warming extending from the Arctic through Eastern Europe. The US is a patchwork, mostly showing the variable effect of unadjusted TOBS.

Nick:
Your image is much warmer than the images Willis displays.
Willis’s graphics show the Northern hemisphere as warming 0.22°C per decade. Your graphic Nick show a temperature over 2.5°C.
Apparently, GHCN V3 and ERSST includes infilling.

“Apparently, GHCN V3 and ERSST includes infilling.”
No, I am showing the trends of the stations as marked – ERSST are grid centres. The shading is linear in triangles between correct colors at the nodes.
The trends, as marked, are in °C/Century. So they aren’t that different.

Your legend “Deg C/Cent” translates as “Degree Celsius/Centrigrade”.
Not that one can tell exactly what “red” equals, since at 2.5°C the color is yellowish orange. Plus, it looks like the scale is increasing since the distance from 2.0°C to 2.5°C is much smaller than the scale at lower temperatures.
CERES during a warming period runs at 1.2°C.
Once several periods of cooling and warming are properly tracked, there may finally be an accurate rate °C per century.
Way over 2.5°C per Century? Extremely doubtful.
Your graphic states GHCN V3 and ERSST, I simply copied what you listed.
Nor does your answer unequically state that there is not any infilling.
Does that claim of yours “the trends of the stations as marked”, mean you downloaded the station data from the stations?
Or is it the data as entered into the GHCN V3 system by NOAA/NASA

“GHCN V2
Methods for removing inhomogeneities from the data record associated with non-climatic influences such as changes in instrumentation, station environment, and observing practices that occur over time were also included in the version 2 release (Peterson and Easterling, 1994; Easterling and Peterson 1995). Since that time efforts have focused on continued improvements in dataset development methods including new quality control processes and advanced techniques for removing data inhomogeneities (Menne and Williams, 2009)”

“GHCN V3
Both historical and near-real-time GHCN data undergo rigorous quality assurance reviews. These reviews include preprocessing checks on source data, time series checks that identify spurious changes in the mean and variance, spatial comparisons that verify the accuracy of the climatological mean and the seasonal cycle, and neighbor checks that identify outliers from both a serial and a spatial perspective”

” mean you downloaded the station data from the stations?”
I used the GHCN V3 tabulation. For these years, that comes directly from the CLIMAT forms, as submitted by the met offices and displayed here.“It does not appear that “unadjusted” means what you think it means.”
I know very well what it means. I have extensive experience with the set and its errors, as described here. It is unadjusted. Values thought doubtful are flagged, not removed or altered, no matter how ridiculous. Errors are often dramatic, like a sign or decimal point error. In my own work, as here, I removed all quality flagged readings. That is my choice. They are a very small percentage. Details for 2010-2014 with all flagged stations are in that link. There are in total 1101 flagged data (listed in detail) in 53 months, out of about 2000 stations per month.“Not that one can tell exactly what “red” equals”
If you go to the app, you can click on any station to get name and trend, in numbers. The color scale has to be non-linear, otherwise most of the color range goes to separating the extremes.

Willis,
In your 3rd chart most of the variance is contained in a band plus or minus 0.2 deg C around nominal. Can this variance band be considered the sum of all errors and uncertainties in the instrumentation and measurement systems used to acquire the original data? It seems possible to me. [But what do I know, I’m just a metallurgist with a failure analysis background].
Good work

Deserts warming more? Isn’t that what you would expect from increasing CO2 in areas where the water vapour isn’t already soaking up all the OLR?
Willis – do you have the tech to check daytime and nighttime temperature trends from CERES data? It would certainly be interesting if all the trend growth was because if slightly less cold nights..

“At the end of the story, I’m left with my usual amazement at the stability of the system”
Exactly. A system of finite volume with finite heat flow from a source, will experience a steady state firmly anchored around the mean values. And gh-gases have nothing to do with the temperatures in such a steady state.
The laws of thermodynamcs determines the state, and gh-gases are not included, because they don’t add any energy to temperature.

“At the end of the story, I’m left with my usual amazement at the stability of the system”
Exactly. A system of finite volume with finite heat flow from a source, will experience a steady state firmly anchored around the mean values. And gh-gases have nothing to do with the temperatures in such a steady state.
The laws of thermodynamcs determines the state, and gh-gases are not included, because they don’t add any energy to temperature.

There’s only so many Joules to go around and for one region to cool, another must warm. As for why the N preferentially warms while the S preferentially cools, this could be an artifact of the S receiving more solar energy than the N owing to the alignment of precession with the seasons and/or the relative ratio of land to water between hemispheres.

I very recently came across a most interesting historical BBC documentary on YouTube. It is about one hour long and covers the 1963 snow blizzard in the UK. It was compiled during the event.
The impact on transportation, food and water distribution, sewage/wastewater and fuel supplies was crippling after but a few weeks. At one stage the commentary makes the point that a Russian weather station above the arctic circle had registered higher temperatures than some recorded in the UK at that time. Interesting.
I don’t know how to find a link for this documentary as it has been pulled from YouTube, possibly due to copyright.
Regards
M

Climate Alarmist is Playing San Francisco Judge as a Complete Foolhttps://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/25/climate-alarmist-is-playing-san-francisco-judge-as-a-complete-fool/
Dr. Myles Allen must think that the San Francisco Judge is a complete fool. I just finished a post refuting many of his claims, but one example needed to be singled out. In his presentation, Dr. Myles Allen replaced the poster child Mt. Kilimanjaro, which was exposed as a fraud in the Climategate emails, with the Glacier National Park Glacier. He claimed that man-made global warming is the cause of the decline of the glacier.

So upward radiation increased near the N pole and decreased around the southern ocean, perhaps because of changes in the frequency and duration of cloud cover? Perhaps because of changes in heat carried to and above the Cloud Condensation Level? Something else? That’s something, but I don’t see it having any straightforward implication. It reads like the start of an investigation, where you confirm that you can download, manipulate, and graph data. If it’s real, and your analysis suggests that it is, then it is worth pursuing.

Willis writes, “what is of note in these global maps? Well, both the poles are unusual.”
I think an important part of the difference between the two poles is because of the north polar and south polar snow and ice albedo differences. The south polar snow and ice is pristine. The northern is covered with a very fine layer of soot, sometimes more.
The melting from the soot albedo change causes additional albedo change and warming, a positive feedback. Look at the photographs of Greenland dirty ice and snow.-https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/why-greenland-dark-snow-should-worry-you/

Thanks, Mosh. The polar regions are abysmally sampled by every temperature dataset. I use the CERES datasets because at least they are internally consistent. I will say that the polar results that I show above agree generally with other analyses, and with the changes in the sea ice … so they can’t be too far wrong.
w.

How does this jive with temp profiles for the Arctic which show virtually all warming during the winter season, when there is no insolation to be absorbed by any soot. Might melt some snow/ice during high sun, but obviously has little effect on summer temps.

When did I EVER say that I don’t accept radiative transfer theory? This is why I ask folks to quote what I said. AFAIK I’ve always said that radiative transfer theory is well-accepted physics, and I’ve used it in e.g. The Steel Greenhouse where I’ve defended it against a host of folks claiming that somehow the steel greenhouse violates the 2nd Law …
Regards,
w.

when did I ever say you didnt?
I make a note, More for the Other readers than for you.
when I think YOU dont accept radiative theory I will say “Willis you dont accept it”
I knew you would try to put words in my mouth. I merely note, that IF you accept the data, then you implicity accept the physics. SOME skeptics who love satillte data dont get this

when did I ever say you didnt?
I make a note, More for the Other readers than for you.
when I think YOU dont accept radiative theory I will say “Willis you dont accept it”
I knew you would try to put words in my mouth. I merely note, that IF you accept the data, then you implicity accept the physics. SOME skeptics who love satillte data dont get this

I didn’t “try to put words in your mouth”, I don’t do that. I misunderstood your confusing comment, which was posted in your usual cryptic style that I have objected to over and over because it’s hard to discern your meaning.
So sue me.
w.

Interesting Map.
Stability of this water world is indeed amazing, funny how well water in its various states does such a beautiful job of keeping this planet..green.
Are these trends,warming or cooling actually significant?
What are the error bars, of CERES?
I did follow the link to their web site,however this information eluded my weak search.
So do we know it is warming for sure,in these places no one lives or no one cares?
How do we establish a trend line where data is so slim?
I live at 62 degrees North.
The Canadian Government has relocated nearly all Arctic temperature sensors to Airports since the 1990s, the manned remote stations are all closed.
These airstrips are all now paved, most were still gravel not too long ago.
Yellowknife Airport just relocated the weather station to the wind shadow of the terminal building and surrounded it with black dirt.
I am sure this station will show unusual warming, especially last summer when the dirt had no vegetation.
But being now sheltered from the prevailing wind, I expect to see another “unprecedented” Arctic temperature increase recorded by this station.
How far south do we have to look before ;”Don’t know,couldn’t say for sure” does not apply?

The most common example of a governed system in our lives is the “cruise control” on your car. Does it hold your speed perfectly steady? Of course not. I set it for 60 mph, and as I drive around it varies up or down by around 3 MPH.

Seriously Willis, get a better car. Using a satnav GPS s speedo my cruise control never even registers a one mph difference.

I’d love to get a better car, Leo, but somehow my Social Security somehow doesn’t leave me all that secure … go figure. Plus it’s a great 2004 Toyota Tacoma pickup that runs and runs.
Thanks for the good thought,
w/

“To me, this is clear evidence of strong thermoregulatory systems”. Yep its name is SUN. Its not clear to me if you are seeing anything else. The concept of blackbody equilibrium suggests a natural oscillation around that point due to both diurnal and seasonal variations. Pretty much the same likely for ocean oscillations like ENSO and multi-decadal ones if indeed they are oscillations that over time establish their own natural time delays, for instance living near the Pacific Ocean the coldest month is February about 2 months beyond the least sun. About the same thing at the other end in June max sun, August max temperature. As regular as those changes are why would we expect a bump in the anomaly that we don’t already see?

Nor is this due to “thermal inertia” as many people claim.
The one thing that has troubled me for decade. It is obvious to any observer that there is very little inertia. Yes, the ENSO leaves a ‘taste in the mouth’ for more than a year and an SSW appears to create an atmospheric image for a few months. so What causes ice ages? What is it that changes the global temperature by 3 to 5 °C and holds it while glaciers SLOWLY build.
Thanks Willis. Great post again.

Its pretty clear to me that you could probably tune an ice and ocean inertia model to explain the approximate 2 to 3 degrees warming since the end of the Maunder Minimum in approximately 1700 using global glacial ice change and an ocean uptake (inertia) model. Some of the longterm instrument records show a rapid warming occurring in a few decades after the Maunder Minimum, this could be a rapid warming of the surface ocean that reduced low latitude and low elevation ice. The warming then flattened until interrupted temporarily for a short period by the Dalton Minimum. After brief recovery post 1815 temp increases from the LIA (500 years of cooling) then another flattening to the mid 19th century during which period global glaciers continued to increase and increase surface albedo. Then in the mid-19th century glacial advance reversed into retreat allowing climate warming to dominate from the underlying ocean inertia. The 500 years of cooling from 1200 to 1700 could take as long to reverse back out with the same intensity things cooled and drove the Vikings out of Greenland from glacial advance as far back as 1300 to 1400 from the more distant settlements. That would put on a model the warmed as fast as it cooled warming from ocean inertia until 2200. Its hard to put values on it lacking early temperature records from the Medieval Warm Period but today they are assumed to be comparable by some studies to day plus or minus a degree or so. The only criticism of the idea of an extended LIA recovery was the flat period from the mid part of the first half of the 18th century until the mid 19th century. So an explanation is needed for that and glacial advance and retreat data overlies it very nicely chronologically. All thats left to do is argue the actual degree effects which can probably be tuned in quite nicely. Of course even today we are not measuring what it happening in the lower 3/4ths of the ocean so as one study put it we are probably today a 1,000 years or more away from a data record that would demonstrate that.

A bit off-topic, probably: In 1950, world population was about 2.5 bn. In 2018 the population has risen to 7.5 bn. The average body temperature is 36.5 to 37.2° C. Today, there are 5 bn people more on this little planet that heat it up. “AGW” is said to be on the rise. Is there a correlation or even a causation?

I completely agree with your scare story. But IF there were numbers that might show that a good part of the alleged AGW is due to humans heating up the atmosphere, then Co2 alone can”t be blamed any longer.

Thanks, Nick, you beat me to it, and you did it just as I would have.
I recommend Nick’s “back-of-the-envelope” method to everyone. As the name suggests, it’s like pulling out an envelope and making some quick calculations on the back of it to determine rough significance or feasibility.
In general the rules are, don’t sweat the small details, don’t deal with second-order or third-order effects, don’t worry about anything smaller than an order of magnitude, don’t worry if your numbers have enough decimals.
So Nick has used round numbers, 100 watts for the energy emitted by the human body, 5e+14 square metres for the earth area, 7.5 billion people, and given us a rough “back-of-the-envelope” estimate. It’s more than accurate enough to determine whether the heat from humans is a significant part of the energy balance … and his result clearly shows that it is not.
w.
PS—For me, a “first-order” effect is one that can make a change of 10% or more in a system. Those are the ones I consider in a back-of-the-envelope calculation.
A second-order effect is one that can make a difference of between 1% and 10% in the outcome, so you’d consider those in a more detailed analysis.
Finally, a third-order effect is one that can make a difference of less than 1% in the outcome. So it is only used in the most detailed analysis.
In this regard, it’s worth noting that a) at the surface there is about half a kilowatt of downwelling radiation (long- plus short-wave), and b) the change from a doubling of CO2 is said to be on the order of 4 W/m2 … which makes it a third-order effect on surface radiation. Just sayin’ …

Dear Willis, “Despite being controlled by things as evanescent as winds, waves, and clouds, the temperature anomaly doesn’t vary more than about two-tenths of a degree.” Given the stable climate conditions, it may be better to state: Because being controlled by things…… As nature is regulated by chaotic processes from molecular level up, averaging each other in impact, the end result. the macro world as we experience it, must nearly by definition be rather stable; variations with 0.2 – 0.3 degrees.

As usual, the strongest variations happen in places where the data is lacking the most. Heavy interpolation going on. Still, the cooling shown for the southern oceans contradicts the rapid melting of ice caps shown by satellite pictures for the kerguelen islands for example. But the rapid melting can also be explained by weather factors.

You are 60 years behind the research team visiting Svalbard:https://archive.org/details/glaciervariation00ahlm
The noted a substantial change in temperatures from 1900 to 1930. 6 degrees Celcius at Svalbard.
Very similar as today.
They even tried to make a global map where to find this change.
The current knowledge has to upgrade the knowledge of currents.

Richard M
Don’t forget to add that increasing the CO2 concentration increases the emissivity of the atmosphere.
It is interesting that back radiation gets frequent mention but not the ‘greyness’ of the body of the atmosphere. Without GHG’s, the atmosphere couldn’t cool by radiation at all. It would be heated by the surface and stay that way.
A desert that has higher temperatures could just have lower humidity and the same energy input. The enthalpy (total energy) in the atmosphere above the desert is the correct number to watch. I realise it is fashionable to talk of temperatures only, but that is a technically not how to think about energy gain and retention (etc). Equally, the Amazon could be cooler simply by having a higher average humidity, not a lower energy input or higher emittance.

As you all know a little knowledge is dangerous. From the discussion between what it seems to knowledgeable scientists the opposite may also be true leading to a battle of egos rather than an objective debate ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_see-saw
Polar see-saw
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The polar see-saw (also: Bipolar seesaw) is the phenomenon that temperature changes in the northern and southern hemispheres may be out of phase. The hypothesis states that large changes, for example when the glaciers are intensely growing or depleting, in the formation of ocean bottom water in both poles take a long time to exert their effect in the other hemisphere. Estimates of the period of delay vary, one typical estimate is 1500 years. This is usually studied in the context of ice-cores taken from Antarctica and Greenland.

And glaciers in that region are growing, both from more precipitation and cooler temperatures. So much for the IPCC’s ill-founded prediction of glacier disappearance.
On balance, the whole world has been cooling for about a decade, a fact obscured by the big ENSO swing of 2016, which blew off a lot of oceanic heat, thus contributing to further future cooling.

Unlike the Mother Jones use of the photography of Greenland’s dirty ice and snow to promote “worry” and activism to reduce CO2 emissions, I think the northern polar dirty ice and snow is an example of significant AGW, a first order forcing, unrelated to the GHG first order forcing. With the great percentage of land in the northern hemisphere and even greater percentage of industry, we’ve changed the albedo and melt rate in the northern polar area, but not the south.
In addition to the albedo change, when ocean ice melts, exposing the darker water, there may also be additional second order surface changes. Polar water seldom warms much above 32 F degrees as extra heat energy melts ice before raising water temperatures. Therefore, I hypothesize that areas of soot covering snow and ice may often be the warmest north polar surface areas with melting and sublimation below the areas of soot. Surface areas that are warmer than surrounding areas are areas of low pressure because warm air rises. Wind occurs because of pressure differentials. If my hypothesis is correct, then changes in surface pressure and winds (and therefore weather patterns) result from the dirty snow and ice you see pictured here-https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/why-greenland-dark-snow-should-worry-you/

Not to mention a whole fleet of Russian Ice Breakers that are busting up the Siberian northern Arctic Ocean on an annual basis now for the last 30+ years, which causes it to melt quicker every summer. There are a lot of ‘additive’ processes that humans are introducing to the natural environment over and above CO2 that get barley no mention. Especially in the Northern Hemisphere where the majority of humans and industrial activity is, with a much larger land mass at near sea level, Greenland notwithstanding.

Willis,
I like to have a close look at the graphed data before they are transformed and I notice that the variations in the cold season lowest temperature is larger than the variations in the higher. Perhaps it indicates the presence of a thermostat. I don’t know.
But the view that a the resulting anomaly should indicate hotter weather on the hottest days need to be questioned.

I keep using these surface temperature readings as far as I know they reflect what is happening globally very well and that is what I am interested in because trends are often just meaningless statistics without any physical prespectivehttp://www.intellicast.com/Global/Temperature/Current.aspx

“So … what is of note in these global maps? Well, both the poles are unusual. The area around Antarctica is cooling strongly, and the Arctic is warming. Presumably, this is why we’re getting less sea ice in the North and more sea ice in the South. It also affects the hemispheric averages, with the Northern Hemisphere warming and the Southern Hemisphere basically unchanging.”
The Earth spends less time near perihelion and more time near aphelion. This means that the lengths of the seasons vary. Perihelion currently occurs around January 3, so the Earth’s greater velocity shortens winter and autumn in the northern hemisphere. Summer in the northern hemisphere is 4.66 days longer than winter, and spring is 2.9 days longer than autumn. And correspondingly the same less in the Southern Hemisphere, meaning 7+ more days of fall and winter in SH. In Antarctica, where it is a high elevation continent covered in perpetual ice, (unchanging Albedo) surrounded by the southern ocean that rapidly gains ice every SH winter, therefore self reinforcing on an annual basis.
Obviously, present day orbital mechanics govern this as Kepler’s second law states, but when natural variation is cold, such as the LIA, then it is mostly frozen over and Albedo is reflecting incoming insolation and little warming to be had, but when things warm naturally, or with assistance from human kind in many industrial ways the last 150 years, then less Albedo as more ice melts leading to earlier springs and less time in NH snow cover. And given most of the NH Arctic is closer to sea level (Greenland notwithstanding) as is a majority of the land in the NH, and additional to humankind industrial inputs, then it is only logical that the NH is more sensitive to to solar and human forcing, than the SH.
This is part of the obvious reason why the Northern Hemisphere is warming and the Southern Hemisphere basically unchanging. There are dozen’s of other natural processes going on, but I think this explains why more current Northern Hemisphere warming presently, and why we have registered net warming the last 150 years because sensitivity to warmer is presently much greater in the NH than the SH.

Willis wrote: “As you can see, the only parts of the planet where the temperature is changing much are the Southern Ocean around Antarctica, and the area above the Arctic Circle” .. Go Figure.
Interestingly, the Arctic and Antarctic are both linked through downwelling into the deep ocean. If total downwelling were limited by the requirement that the sum matches total upwelling, then a slowing of downwelling in the Antarctic would be accompanied by a increase in downwelling in the Arctic. Increased downwelling in the Arctic would lead to import of more warm water from temperature regions on the surface and Arctic warming. Decreased downwelling in the Antarctic would lead to less import of warm water and cooling.
IIRC, a see-saw of this sort has been hypothesized to function during the very warm periods (+10? degC) observed in Greenland ice cores (and Antarctic ice cores) during the last ice age. Likewise, warming took place much earlier in Antarctica than Greenland as the last ice age ended.
When looking for a reference, I found that Chylek has made some of the same observations you report here, except he covers the whole 20th century.https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010GL042793
Paragraph [16] of that paper covers references to the seesaw observed during the last ice age in ice cores.

Willis, I recommended my paper part 8 (EIGHT) which deals with
the time period 1600 AD to 2050 AD, the present time, athttp://www.knowledgeminer.eu/climate-papers.html
Instead of checking THIS PAPER, you selected ANOTHER ONE, wiily-nilly
and only made arrogant remarks over part 7 (SEVEN).. This time I will
write the number in letters, for your better visibility…….. It seems, age is
taking its toll, if you do not notice to be in a completely other (550 AD to
1650 AD) time period.
Is this your way of analyzing papers, not seeing that you are within
a different Holocene time?
Hopefully, Anthony does not notice that you start to have difficulties
with numbers………well, we all get old? I will give you a second
chance with paper PART 8 (EIGHT).. and please feed in the period
lengths, the period length increase of 6.93 years and the period
amplitude factor, which is also given, starting 8108 BC and remaining
steady for over 10,000 years……
The paper NUMBER EIGHT is interesting….it covers the time until 2050,
which you were asking for to comment…… xx..

“”Here’s the bar that you need to clear:
“One way, and this is the way I prefer, is to have a clear physical picture of the process that you are calculating. The other way is to have a precise and self-consistent mathematical formalism. You have neither.”

Willis, first of all you do NOT READ my papers, just the abstracts…..
There is both a clear physical picture of the process, physically EXPLAINED
over 109 pages long in my booklet available.

Weltklima, thanks for your comment. I read the abstract of your paper 7 and the abstract of your paper 8. I have rarely seen such special pleading or such a strange mish-mash of postulated causes. In addition, you’ve proposed a total impossibility—a “cosmic lunar meteor impact” … you say that “this impact displaced the Earth-Moon Barycenter (EMB)”, and then you say it “then spirals back in 4 complete loops onto its regular EMB flight path around the Sun”.
I’m sorry to be so blunt, but that is pseudo-scientific nonsense.
In addition, you have one of what on my planet is a pretty sure-fire sign of what I call an “SIF”, which is a Single Issue Fanatic—stacks of CAPITAL letters IN each PARAGRAPH in places that MAKE no SENSE.
Given all of that—given the claim that there are five different causes that neatly replace each other just at the point where your previous theory stops working, given the crazy idea about the “cosmic lunar meteor impact”, given that once the moon is driven out of its normal orbit it will not just “spiral back” to where it was, given that there is no way to know how many loops it made on its imaginary trip, and given your BIZARRE use OF capital letters where THERE is no need FOR them … given all that, I fear that I am not the man to wade through your 109 page booklet and your eight different treatises. I could force myself to do it, I suppose, although it would be painful … but I guarantee you won’t like what I find.
My best regards to you in any case, weltklima, and my regrets,
w.

Willis wrote to weltklima, “In addition, you’ve proposed a total impossibility—a “cosmic lunar meteor impact” … you say that “this impact displaced the Earth-Moon Barycenter (EMB)”, and then you say it “then spirals back in 4 complete loops onto its regular EMB flight path around the Sun”.
I’m sorry to be so blunt, but that is pseudo-scientific nonsense.”
Willis is right. That is impossible nonsense — a violation of conservation of angular momentum, to be specific. Orbiting bodies cannot “spiral” unless something is exerting drag on them (like an atmosphere).

Willis, you are aware that in climate science some major importent variables are missing and that the IPCC list with internal variables is uncomplete…. and there must be some other external forcing which governs our climate and explains the about 400 year long climate movement up and down: CWP – LIA – MWP – LALIA – RWP – Greek cold…..etc. This about 400 year climate wave up and down is historical knowledge (before your time) of the Old Greeks, There exist a preserved letter of Solon in Greece to the Pharao (300 BC), in which he described this multi-centennial observation and this, temp/climate up and down continued after Solon, see the above described climate up and down……. The regularity of this centennial movement points to external causes, which are not the Sunspots, but rather Earth Orbital Changes. For this reason, the climate came out of the deep, cold LIA in the 17 Cty and will peak (at 2048-49) in the 21st century, continuing this up- and down cycle……this is the message of my paper Holocene part 8, which you are unwilling to read.
I call this attitude LEARNRESISTENT. Especially you know NOTHING about the osculating, oscillating, “perturbating” Earth orbit around the Sun, which is the cause for this centennial climate change…..
Instead, you walk in circles, over and over getting stuck in the IPCC nonsensical internal “climate causes” and falsifying what is false to recognize without computer check…..
You are victim of the IPCC AR4 ploy in 2006 to point to 20,000 + -year Milankovitch exclusively and thus aiming at COVERING UP of ALL annual. decadal and centennial Earth orbital changes….. and you are a stout believer of IPCC nonsensical ploy. Climate relevant are the OSCULATIONS, (Oscillations, Perturbations) of the Earth orbit. ….and you reject to look into the matter, because you are a true victim of the ploy and my booklet would be over your head anyway, this is, what you feel…..but it is written with extra care for the normal citizen without previous Earth orbital knowledge.
I had a fruitful Email exchange with the Milankovitch coryphea Andre Berger (Louvain Uni), who ADMITTED the oscillations, even ordered my booklet, but we could not get further, becaus JPL Pasadena, close to you where you live, keep the (I believe as part of Hanson NASA GISS) – or other reasons, the astrophysical Osculation values of the Earth Orbit.SECRET…. (I resorted to good historical measurements). If you were able to get those osculation distances, place the distance variations between Sun and Earth in a forcing system of x Watts/1 million km perturbation (as in my booklet) then you will get the temp increase out of the LIA into the present CWP. you will recognize the temp max in 2048-49 AD….
But you rather prisoner in you circle of dwelling in internal IPCC forcings and leave all the WUWT readers in limbo, why global temps increase, stay flat, go down and you then you WONDER HOW global temps continue after the present plateau…and admit not being able to make a senseful forcast as I did in part 8, based on sound physical astrophysical values, continuing the work of Newton, Gauss and Leibnitz, which you are unwilling to accept. Too bad for you, not for me, because truth will always prevail…. cheers from Mexico ..JS[Reformatted to eliminate spurious line breaks … -w.]

To ATheoK Mar 24, 3:53
Theo, your “”many claims, no proof” and “How is the Moon impact proven?”
only shows that you are an IGNORANT, NOT READING the paper….. You ask
for prove to be GIVEN IN AN ABSTRACT,
but the RULES of abstract writing is NOT GIVING PROVE in the 300 words
available for abstract writing…… no understanding of science, typical troll
behaviour….too bad, not even worth my time to reply…..sorry JS..

To Willis comment . “”Here’s the bar that you need to clear:
“One way, and this is the way I prefer, is to have a clear physical picture of the
process that you are calculating. The other way is to have a precise and
self-consistent mathematical formalism. You have neither.”
Willis, first of all you do NOT READ my papers, just the abstracts…..
There is both a clear physical picture of the process, physically EXPLAINED
over 109 pages long in my booklet available. .
We are dealing here with an 8 part Holocene series dedicated to
DEMONSTRATING THE EMPIRICAL PROOF AND THE CONSISTENCE
of proposed calculations ………. and ALL other climate authors do never
start from scratch in their papers, with theoretical calculations from the
beginning. I can/will not in EVERY PAPER SHOW the physical-theoretical
Earth orbital background ANEW and anew, the papers would get too long…..
sorry folks……
To reiterate once again: The physical process are clear, the necessary
calculations were made and remain unrefuted since 2011…..the physical
base of those calculations is the calculations of Earth Orbital Oscillations
(EOO) WHICH arise by the OSCULATING ..yes, OSCULATION ….flight of
Earth in its orbit around the Sun.
Famous osculation calculations started with the mathematicians G.W. Leibniz
and Carl Gauss, he observed the sky for 4 years and developed the Least
Squares Method based on those orbital osculation calculations……..
Prof. Foster (UK), who participated in the preparations of AR4, 2007, told
me how they cheered and embraced themselves in the meeting after deciding
to rig climate science by separating the EOO out and focussing on internal
forcing… this was BTY…. .
I think you are slowly loosing it: Instead of being interested in NEW papers,
which include the EOO and HAVE NOVELTY VALUE with CALCULATED
PROCESSES (I am not the handwaving Javier cycle type and I am
interested only in ORIGINARY RESEARCH). I read ALL of your post for
many years, and I noticed (you do not) that years before you did good
novelty work with the thermostat and volcano papers ……and
what are you doing now? Falsifyiing IPCC papers which we ALL know
from the start that they are false..come on…writing about old hats……..
You NEVER read a paper of mine to the end…because you are missing
the EOO background and you are NOT INCLINED to learn something
NEW….. “”WHAT YOU NEVER HEARD OF, MUST BE WRONG”””….
I know many LEARNRESISTENT types….. too bad, you joined …
cheers anyway, some of you work keeps up very good
and is very readable……….. you made up your mind, no problem…..xx.
.

To Chimp, reply 24.3. 8:42 pm
“Chimp” …Nomen es Omen….. the Holocene series, paper 1 to 8 covers the
entire 10,000 years of Holocene in A SEQUENCIAL ROW…..http://www.knowledgeminer.eu/climate-papers.html
The novelty is that each and EVERY temp spike was analyzed, which no other
author did or dared to achieve until now over such a long period…..the prevailing
verdict of Holocene studies is “Holocene conundrum” ….. therefore all studies
select shorter, maximum 3 millenia temp spans, in order to omit the difficult parts…
..I had to brake the 10,000 years into 8 consecutive segments….
and the Holocene, part 7, and the one before, part 6, were the most difficult
of climate pattern recognition. and need the knowledge of paper part 1 or 2
at least……
Willis as well never saw a continuous Holocene time series and ask me
to PROVE EVERY PHYSICAL BACKGROUND and formula IN EACH
CONSECUTIVE paper anew…… this is ridiculous, even the warmist papers
DO NOT develop the CO2-meme IN EVERY PAPER FROM SCRATCH…
. therefore, read at first the preceeding papers
before commenting senseless about Holocene end timespan papers……
So you felt to throw in your 5 cents worth…..”short 1,000 year period”……
are you the chimp? There are the 7 other time intervals already on-line.
What are you talking about?
Get serious! JS.

To Willis:
Willis, convince Anthony to publish PART 8 (not the preceeding papers 1 – 7), which will
achieve the following:
(1) Answer your question of the temp evolution until 2050 WITH CALCULATIONS
PROVIDED …..
(2) Let the folks decide whether they want the full physical -Earth orbit mechanical
background…..
(3) fresh approach to the stuck climate science, even you reached a dead end in forecasting
(4) since AGW/CO2 is clearly wrong, ALL hidden possibilities BASED ON CALCULATIONS,
PROVIDING figures and reproducible numbers should have a place on the table instead of
only proving IPCC and climate sensitivity ARE WRONG and leaving the folks
EMPTY-HANDED and guessing into wrong directions. This is unfair.
cheers Jo.

To Willis:
Willis, convince Anthony to publish PART 8 (not the preceeding papers 1 – 7), which will
achieve the following:

Pass … your texts contain scientific misunderstandings, like your claim about the earth-moon barycenter spiraling out and then returning to its original location after four orbits … not possible.
Regarding your four points regarding what publishing your work would do:

I am as uninterested in your forecasts regarding the year 2050 as I am in anyone and everyone else’s long-range forecasts. I think that until our understanding progresses far beyond where it is now, climate scientists should eschew all forecasts, particularly long-range forecasts for 2030 or 2050 or 2100.

They can do that now. Your writings are there to be read by anyone interested. I’m not.

(3) fresh approach to the stuck climate science, even you reached a dead end in forecasting

Huh? I haven’t “reached a dead end in forecasting”. I make no attempt to forecast, and I think those that do are seriously misguided.

(4) since AGW/CO2 is clearly wrong, ALL hidden possibilities BASED ON CALCULATIONS,
PROVIDING figures and reproducible numbers should have a place on the table instead of
only proving IPCC and climate sensitivity ARE WRONG and leaving the folks
EMPTY-HANDED and guessing into wrong directions. This is unfair.

As my mom told me when I returned from my first day of high school and said it was totally unfair …“Who ever told you that the world was fair?”
And no, simply BECAUSE someone HAS used CALCULATIONS and is PROVIDING figures is far from A sufficient reason TO take THEIR claims seriously … sorry, I couldn’t resist the allure of the CAPITAL LETTERS …
Sadly, I would advise Anthony to not publish your work. Not that he asks me very often, he’s his own man, and his judgment is generally spot-on in these matters …
w.

No problem, Willis….. you are a free person and you are allowed to defend your
right to NOT READING papers, but skim an abstract and know already
the paper´s worth….. I will let you have your right to ignorance…. as you mentioned
your school pupil days, please add that you had the same attitude of not
wanting to read NEW knowledge long before, no academic interest…..and
consequently, you became fisherman, where you had to deal only with fish,
big and small, head and tail, and a few numbers: the catch in pounds……
Good choice. I am particulary impressed by your astronomical Earth Orbital
knowledge, which you pull out of your sleeve since your high school days.
Well, too bad, some people really waste their talents – but if that is what
you want, its fine with me. Regards Jo.

the upper Amazon is cooling strongly. So it looks like some (but not all) deserts are warming, and some (but not all) tropical forests are cooling … why?

AR5, WG1 kapitel 9.http://thumbsnap.com/s/rlhIrW5H.pngFigure 9.28 | (a): Annual mean visible aerosol optical depth (AOD) for 2001 through 2005 using the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS) version 5 satellite retrievals for ocean regions (Remer et al., 2008) with corrections (Zhang et al., 2008a; Shi et al., 2011) and version 31 of MISR retrievals over land (Zhang and Reid, 2010; Stevens and Schwartz, 2012).
There is a lot of aerosols from pollen above Amazonas.
Did the amount of aerosols change over the years?
Did the cloud-cover change over the years?
Answers to those questions could be some of the answer to your “why?”.

To Dave Burton , 26. Mar 4:56
Dave, I am dedicated to the Earth orbit for almost 20 years……. while you heard
something that “angular momentum” exists in the world….
Why do you want to throw in your 5 cents worth without knowing the course of the´
Earths flight around the Sun? ….. Every astronomer KNOWS that the forward movement
of the Earth, which is carrying out its elliptic MEAN PATH has the FORM OF AN SPIRAL….
THE Moon as well SPIRALLES around Earth [“libration”] …..The SPIRAL IS THE GRAND
MOVEMENT OF EARTH AND MOON, not to mention the other planets….Because of
spiralling, the Earth orbit is an OSCULATING ORBIT MOVEMENT and, as on a ship
moving in high sea, the stars are called “Osculating elements”, because they move up
and down with the waves..(thus with the oscillating orbit)…..
You fell victim, just as Willis did, to the IPCC ploy of 2006 (whilst setting up AR4) to
suppress the public mentioning of Earth orbital movements ON ANNUAL, DECADAL
AND CENTENNIAL SCALE……They agreed to mention/concentrate/air/comment/
ONLY on MULTICENTENNIAL (minimum 19,000 yr) Earth and Earth orbital
movements and EXCLUSIVELY DWELL ON THOSE…. [“Milankovitch cycles]. The
whole Milankovitch stuff almost is a scam with THE AIM and INTENTION of
COVERING UP the OSCULATING SPIRALLING MOVEMENT OF EARTH…..
Because this ploy to cover up the annual Earth orbit orcillation functioned very
well, as they colluded in 2006, Willis has 1. never heard of this 2. Willis is not
open to accept it, 3. Willis is constantly offending me, when I bring up the EOO
subject 4. Willis is on the meme: I have not heard it…so it must be wrong 5, He
knows that he rehearses always the same old opera and fights against any NEW
THOUGHT, stuck in his old thinking unwillig to learn something NEW…..
….. and if you write to Jet Prop. Lab in Pasadena to hand you their DAILY
OSCULATION list, they have order to keep ti secret (I asks various times in the
past – no reply from this guys)….. For this reason, I use as physical measurements
observations made before NASA-GISS-JPL…..
My advice: Study the osculating (or oscillation or “perturbation” advance of Earth
and stay away from the “Knowing All”-attitude. Cheers J.
.
…….

weltklima, perhaps that you don’t know what the word “spiral” means. Here’s the definition:https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/spiral“…A spiral is a shape which winds round and round, with each curve above or outside the previous one…”
If a cataclysmic impact of some object with the Moon or Earth were to change their orbits, their orbits would stay changed. They would not spiral back to their old orbits.

to Dave Burton: Dave, lets stop the conversation…..You are a high school student, trying
to look smart…….. you need to read about the Earth orbit and how gravitational forces act
onto Earth, Moon and planets. Cheers Js.

Equatorial “tropical forests cooling”….
I’ve talked about this before. I suspect greening of the planet makes some contribution to cooling. It is an endothermic process and it coincided with the “pause”. In 2012 forest cover expanded 14% in 30 yrs and is ongoing. I recall reading that earths trees number 3 trillion, i.e. 14% means 420B new trees avg ~ 15yrs old, some 200kg/tree carbon sequestered or~80GT in 30 yrs, say by 2018 100GT Carb. Assuming “heat” sequestered equivalent to 120% that amount of anthracite energy content (40GJ/MT)~4TJ.
It is a remarkable fact that this greening, the only climate change thats unequivocal, gets scant mention by the science. Of course this absolute proof of real climate change comes at a cost- the greening (doubled harvests, increased habitat, conservation of water and diversity) makes carbon emissions a huge net benefit rather than a cost. We would perhaps owe a premium to the fossil fuel industry! If the math is correct, it is conservative because, to my mind, the greening would be exponential.

You are right in that photosynthesis is the blind spot of climate. “Earth energy budget” is wrong on this one.
FAO ( http://www.fao.org/docrep/w7241e/w7241e06.htm#TopOfPage ) use a 2 kg CO2 ~ 30 MJ, that’s 55 MJ / kg C, so 100 Gt C would be ~ 5.5TJ. Your estimate (100 Gt C) seems correct, provided you don’t mean just live trees, as most of them are now dead and slowly decaying in the soil.
Because :
carbon cycle estimates (official science, so to speak) are that, roughly, of all anthropogenic carbon (~350 Gt as of now)
* ~45% is still in the atmosphere
* ~1/3 has been turned into plants, part still alive, most now dead in the soil.
* ~1/5 sunk down the oceans
Of the ~120 Gt turned into plants, most of it is now dead in the soil, slowly decaying. Then again, we can estimate the still living part as per the “consensus climate science”, which says that anthropogenic contribution is an increase of 3 Gt uptake (123 Gt instead of 120 Gt), which is 2.5%, and 2.5% of 550 Gt plants is ~14 Gt.

Willis Eschenbach sez:
“In my opinion, the most important words
that anyone studying the climate
can learn to say are “I don’t know.” ”
My comment:
In my opinion,
that true statement
moves Willis Eschenbach
up one notch, from a
good writer of scientific articles,
to a great writer.
In my opinion,
the highest possible level
of knowledge in climate science
is self awareness (“I don’t know”),
coupled with the ability to refute the
IPCC’s “CO2 controls the climate”,
and will cause runaway warming,
which is just wild guess speculation.
Mr. Eschenbach has reached the highest level.
Some people who can refute the IPCC conclusions
think they have to provide a better conclusion
about climate change — their own theory,
and often their own climate prediction too.
But it is easier just to refute the IPCC,
without claiming you have a better theory,
and a better prediction of the future climate,
because your theory and prediction are very
likely to be proven wrong.
“Modern” climate science is based
on a prediction of the future climate,
that we are supposed to believe
because it is stated with great confidence
by government bureaucrats
and politicians
year after year …
in spite of them providing
30 years of wrong climate predictions,
as strong evidence the future climate
can’t be predicted, other than saying
“It will change”.
My climate change blog:http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy